If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The New Dimensions at Citi Field, Much Ado About Nothing

The first three years at Citi Field were marked by the incessant whining of fans, players and announcers about how unfair the stadium played.

Last year the Mets moved the fences in and it only yielded one benefit ... nobody is talking about the dimensions anymore!

I thought it would be interesting to see what impact, if any, the fences actually had on team production (it's a slow news day, unless you consider the acquisition of Aaron Laffey to be news).

We all knew that more home runs were going to be hit, that was a given. Did the Mets hitters benefit overall from the change? Were Mets pitchers harmed by the change? Most importantly, what was the impact on winning and losing? I included a graphic that compares the 2012 season to the prior three seasons combined at Citi Field.

There are many ways you can choose to interpret the results but, no matter how you try to spin it, you can not argue that the changes were beneficial.

The team home OPS ranged from .718 to .748 in prior seasons at Citi Field before plummeting to .679 in 2012! An OPS of .679 is downright anemic and it underscores what I have said since day one, the Mets offensive woes are due solely to personnel and the configuration of the stadium is not to blame.

The Mets have not had a five hundred season since they moved into Citi Field. However, their combined first three years in Citi Field, the Mets home winning percentage was a notch above five hundred. Last season they had a .444 winning percentage at home, slightly worse than their away winning percentage of .469.

Met pitchers allowed more home runs at Citi Field than on the road but Met hitters hit a lower percentage of the total home runs hit at Citi Field than in the first three years of it's existence.

None of this matters because the changes are popular and they are here to stay. But perception and reality have always been in conflict on this topic.

The Mets had a home field that had a very distinct personality and they could have built their team to take advantage of it. However, the field has been returned to a more standard configuration, much to the delight of fans, hitters and commentators ... with the exception of one lone blogger.

Jason Bay did not become the worst hitter in major league baseball because of dimensions ... he simply lost his skills. Josh Thole would be a punch and judy hitter even if he played all his games at Wrigley Field with the wind blowing out. They can move the fences in to Williamsport distance if they like, Mike Nickeas would still struggle to hit above the Mendoza line.

The notion that a field can be unfair just makes no sense. Both teams have to deal with the same environment, all fields by definition are fair (except maybe the Astrodome when they toyed with the air conditioning for Jimmy Wynn).

I hate to say I told you so (actually that's not true, I kind of like it) when it comes to the impact the fences had on the Mets fortunes but the numbers don't lie. All the talk about Citi Field being unfair was simply a perception ... not a reality.

The team home OPS ranged from .718 to .748 in prior seasons at Citi Field before plummeting to .679 in 2012! An OPS of .679 is downright anemic and it underscores what I have said since day one, the Mets offensive woes are due solely to personnel and the configuration of the stadium is not to blame.

The Mets have not had a five hundred season since they moved into Citi Field. However, their combined first three years in Citi Field, the Mets home winning percentage was a notch above five hundred. Last season they had a .444 winning percentage at home, slightly worse than their away winning percentage of .469.

Sure, why take into account the hitters we had from 2009-11 with 2012? Why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Every week it seems there were a handful of balls that left the park last year that wouldnt have in previous years. If the OPS numbers were down in 2012, the numbers would have been much lower than previous years if guys like Beltran, Pagan, Reyes, Francoeur, and even Sheffield had a chance to hit with these fences.

I find it laughable that the writer didn't take into account that he was comparing numbers from guys like Torres, Duda, and Tejada with Pagan, Beltran, and Reyes.

Is that moronic or what?

Anyway you spin it? Hardly.

EDIT: I agree with the premise that the field dimensions won't affect won-loss. But to say it had little impact on hitters and pitchers is just, well, ridiculous.

"Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears – but they seem kinda sensible...."

Sure, why take into account the hitters we had from 2009-11 with 2012? Why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Every week it seems there were a handful of balls that left the park last year that wouldnt have in previous years. If the OPS numbers were down in 2012, the numbers would have been much lower than previous years if guys like Beltran, Pagan, Reyes, Francoeur, and even Sheffield had a chance to hit with these fences.

I find it laughable that the writer didn't take into account that he was comparing numbers from guys like Torres, Duda, and Tejada with Pagan, Beltran, and Reyes.

Is that moronic or what?

Anyway you spin it? Hardly.

EDIT: I agree with the premise that the field dimensions won't affect won-loss. But to say it had little impact on hitters and pitchers is just, well, ridiculous.

...but he was not, as he mention in this sentence.

Jason Bay did not become the worst hitter in major league baseball because of dimensions ... he simply lost his skills. Josh Thole would be a punch and judy hitter even if he played all his games at Wrigley Field with the wind blowing out. They can move the fences in to Williamsport distance if they like, Mike Nickeas would still struggle to hit above the Mendoza line.

He in essence is saying that it does not matter where the fences are at, that the talent is what makes the difference. If you have guys that can hit, they will hit, if you don't then it does not matter.

If your premise is that the dimensions were changed to benefit the Mets offense, you're wrong. Both the Mets and their visitors play in the same park, so both teams theoretically get the same benefit. Actually, with a pitching centric team like the Mets, it would normally be the visitors that would gain an advantage.

The fences were moved in to make Citi a more hitter friendly park and less a pitcher's park. Talk was that free agent position players were sometimes reluctant to sign with the Mets because their stats would be adversely affected. Time will only tell if the Mets are more easily able to attract premium free agents when they can get back into the FA market. For now, the point is moot.

He in essence is saying that it does not matter where the fences are at, that the talent is what makes the difference. If you have guys that can hit, they will hit, if you don't then it does not matter.

On the other hand he wrote:

The notion that a field can be unfair just makes no sense.

The original Citi Field was indeed unfair.How many times did we see hitters tatto the ball only to see it knock off the wall or better yet, caught in front of the Mo Zone.

Those fences were ridiculously unfair.

And the notion that Citi Field was more unfair to the Mets than other teams was a red herring. That was never the issue. The issue was that it broke hitters hearts and it sucked to have to play your home games there as a hitter.

No matter how you spin it, those are absolute truths.

"Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears – but they seem kinda sensible...."

Our hitters were the only ones who had problems with the dimesions because I recall a number of opposing players hitting bombs there while ours could barely reach the warning track. It was just a built in excuse is all. Only Ike and Hairston seem to have no problems crushing the ball there.

I want to see the stat from when Citi Field opened how many homeruns were hit by opposing players as compared to ours and I bet the difference is greatly in favor of the opposing batters. It just means our hitters didn't get it done. Citi Field's dimensions were that of extra base hits, a doubles and triples paradise. Only Reyes and Pagan utilized that to their advantage.

Clearly the old dimensions were unfair, and the new dimensions have succeeded in increasing the number of HR hit, and helping the park to play a little more neutrally.

In the long run, this might arguably affect the team only because they won't then be tempted to build a team to suit a specific park. But this also has no benefit either way because it creates just as much a road disadvantage as home advantage.

So it's true that the dimensions, old or new, affected both teams equally. Was there anyone who didn't realize this? Wasn't it kind of obvious? I honestly don't remember anyone arguing that moving the fences would make the Mets a better team, or improve their record. This just seems like a huge strawman.

If there was one lone blogger arguing against this notion, maybe that's because there was only one lone blogger who thought this was what the debate was about.